However, its initial publication in 1959 was not only unauthorized, but met by President
David O. McKay and other General Authorities with both surprise and objection.

In the wake of its appearance, McKay directed that a review be made of the books
contents and a report submitted to him, along with recommendations on how to deal with it
problematic publication.

An analysis of the book was subsequently conducted by Apostles Marion G. Romney and Mark
E. Petersen, wherein they noted the books numerous doctrinal errors, objectionable
language, discourteous tone and questionable claims.

Recommendation was made that McConkies Mormon Doctrine not be
republished, that it be repudiated, and that in the future no book be published by any of
the Brethren without first obtaining First Presidency approval.

McKay agreed with the suggestion that Mormon Doctrine not be republished and
directed that restrictions be placed on future book publishing by General Authorities.

The First Presidency also issued a private, face-to-face reprimand to McConkie, whereupon
McConkie promised to behave.

Below are documents which include McKays officially-directed report on the
books contents (authored by Apostle Romney), as well as excerpts from McKays
contemporary office journal on the controversy surrounding the book and the resolution of
the problems its publication had created.

(These documents were originally copied with permission of the LDS Church Archivist.
Reproductions of those copies are in my possession. The original Romney letter and its
attached copy of the Mormon Doctrine manuscript are in the First
Presidencys Office).

Also noted below are letters authorized by McKay which were sent out to inquiring Church
members after publication of McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine," declaring that it and
other books published by individual General Authorities did not represent the official
position of the LDS Church.

(Copies of these letters are also in my possession).

_____

REPORT FROM MARION G. ROMNEY TO DAVID O. McKAY

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
The Council of the Twelve
47 E. South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah

January 28, 1959

President David O. McKay
Building

Dear President McKay:

This is my report on MORMON DOCTRINE, by Bruce R. McConkie, which on January 5, you asked
me to read.

The book is a 776 page work which, in the words of the author, purports to be, the
first major attempt to digest, explain, and analyze all of the important doctrines of the
kingdom . . . . . the first extensive compendium of the whole gospelthe first
attempt to publish an encyclopedic commentary covering the whole field of revealed
religion.

For the work itself, the author assumes the sole and full
responsibility. (Exhibit I) (The exhibits cited in this report consist of printed
pages from the book. The statements in point are underscored in red.)

Preparation of the volume has entailed much study and research. Its favorable reception
evidences a felt need for such a treatise.

The author is an able and thorough student of the gospel. In many respects he has produced
a remarkable book. Properly used, it quickly introduces the student to the authorities on
most any gospel subject.

As to the book itself, notwithstanding its many commendable and valuable features and the
authors assumption of sole and full responsibility for it, its nature
and scope and the authoritative tone of the style in which it is written pose the question
as to the propriety of the authors attempting such a project without assignment and
supervision from him whose right and responsibility it is to speak for the Church on
Mormon Doctrine. Had the work been authoritatively supervised, some of the
following matters might have been omitted and the treatment of others modified.

A. Reference to churches and other groups who do not accept Mormon Doctrine.

Interpretation of Every spirit of man was innocent in the beginning, page 606

Status of little children in the celestial kingdom, page 607

Resumption of schools of the prophets, page 613

Time of beginning of seasons, page 616

Interpretation of III Nephi 12:20, page 618

D. Repeated use of the word apostate and related terms in a way which to many
seems discourteous and to others gives offense. (Exhibit V, pages 123, 125, 160, 169, 212,
223, 383, 538, 546, 548, 596)

Faithfully and Respectfully submitted,

[Signed]

Marion G. Romney

Enc.

P. S.

As per my letter to you of January 9, I have promised to contact Marvin Wallin, manager of
Bookcraft Company, by the 9th of February about the 4,000 volume edition of MORMON
DOCTRINE which he is holding.

I shall therefore seek to contact you about the matter near the end of next week.

Sincerely,

M. G. R.
_____

OFFICE JOURNAL OF PRESIDENT DAVID O. McKAY

THURSDAY, January 7, 1960

10:15 to 12:45 p.m. Re: The bookMormon Doctrine

The First Presidency met with Elders Mark E. Petersen and Marion G. Romney. They submitted
their report upon their examination of the book Mormon Doctrine by Elder Bruce
McConkie.

These brethren reported that the manuscript of the book Mormon Doctrine has
not been read by the reading committee; that President Joseph Fielding Smith did not know
anything about it until it was published. Elder Petersen stated that the extent of the
corrections which he had marked in his copy of the book (1067) affected most of the 776
pages of the book. He also said that he thought the brethren should be under the rule that
no book should be published without a specific approval of the First Presidency.

I stated that the decision of the First Presidency and the Committee should be announced
to the Twelve.

It was agreed that the necessary corrections are so numerous that to republish a corrected
edition of the book would be such an extensive repudiation of the original as to destroy
the credit of the author; that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that
the book should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of
the General Authorities of the Church. It was also agreed that this decision should be
announced to the Council of the Twelve before I talk to the author.

Elder Petersen will prepare an editorial for publication in the Improvement Era, stating
the principle of approval of books on Church doctrine.

FRIDAY, January 8, 1960

11:55 to 12:15 p.m.

The First Presidency held a meeting. We decided that Bruce R. McConkies book,
Mormon Doctrine recently published by Bookcraft Company, must not be
re-published, as it is full of errors and misstatements, and it is most unfortunate that
it has receive such wide circulation. It is reported to us that Brother McConkie has made
corrections to his book, and is now preparing another edition. We decided this morning
that we do not want him to publish another edition.

We decided, also, to have no more books published by General Authorities without their
first having the consent of the First Presidency. (see January 7, 1960)

At the request of the First Presidency, I called President Joseph Fielding Smith and told
him that we are a unit in disapproving of Brother Bruce R. McConkies book,
Mormon Doctrine, as an authoritative exposition of the principles of the
gospel.

I then said: Now, Brother Smith, he is a General Authority, and we do not want to
give him a public rebuke that would be embarrassing to him and lessen his influence with
the members of the Church, so we shall speak to the Twelve at our meeting in the Temple
tomorrow, and tell them that Brother McConkies book is not approved as an
authoritative book and that it should not be republished, even if the errors (some 1,067)
are corrected.

Brother Smith agreed with this suggestion to report to the Twelve, and said,
That is the best thing to do.

I then said that Brother McConkie is advocating by letter some of the [one line of words
partially cut off on bottom of the photocopied page of journal] . . . to letters he
receives. Brother Smith said, I will speak to him about that. I then mentioned
that he is also speaking on these subjects, and Brother Smith said, I will speak to
him about that also.

I also said that the First Presidency had decided that General Authorities of the Church
should not publish books without submitting them to some member of the General
Authorities, and President Smith agreed to this as being wise.

THURSDAY, January 28, 1960

8:30 to 9 a.m. Bruce R. McConkies Book

Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency. I reported to my counselors that I had
talked with President Joseph Fielding Smith about the decision that the book Mormon
Doctrine should not be republished and about handling the matter to avoid
undermining Brother McConkies influence. President Smith agreed that the book should
not be republished, and said he would talk with Brother McConkie. It was decided that the
First Presidency should inform Brother McConkie before he learns of our decision from some
other source, so Brother McConkie was asked to come into our meeting this morning.

When he arrived I informed him of the desire of the First Presidency with reference to h
is book not being republished, to which he agreed. The recommendation was also made that
he answer inquiries on the subject with care. Brother McConkie said, I am amenable
to whatever you Brethren want. I will do exactly what you want. I will be as discreet and
as wise as I can. In answering letters he said that he would express no views
contrary to views which the First Presidency has expressed. He said that he would conform
in every respect. . . .

10 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.

Was engaged in the meeting of the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve in the Salt
Lake Temple.

At Council meeting I reported to the Brethren our decision regarding Elder Bruce R.
McConkies book Mormon Doctrine, stating that it had caused considerable
comment throughout the Church, and that it has been a source of concern to the Brethren
ever since it was published. I said that this book had not been presented to anyone for
consideration or approval until after its publication. I further said that the First
Presidency have [sic] give it very careful consideration, as undoubtedly have some of the
Brethren of the Twelve also, and that the First Presidency now recommend that the book be
not republished; that it be not republished even in a corrected form, even though Brother
McConkie mentions in the book that he takes all responsibility for it; and that it not be
recognized as an authoritative book.

I said further that the question has arisen as to whether a public correction should be
made and a addendum given emphasizing the [bottom line of photocopied page of journal cut
off] . . . it is felt that that would not be wise because Brother McConkie is one of the
General Authorities, and it might lessen his influence. The First Presidency recommend
that the situation be left as it is, and whenever a question about it arises, we can
answer that it is unauthoritative; that it was issued by Brother McConkie on his own
responsibility, and he must answer for it.

I reported that the First Presidency had talked to Brother McConkie this morning, and he
said he will do whatever the Brethren want him to do. He will not attempt to republish the
book nor to say anything by letter, and if he answers letters or inquiries that he will
answer them in accordance with the suggestions made by the Brethren, and not advocate
those things concerning which question had been raised as contained in the book.

The Brethren unanimously approved of this.

I then said that the First Presidency further recommend that when any member of the
General Authorities desires to write a book, that the Brethren of the Twelve or the First
Presidency be consulted regarding it. While the author need not get the approval of these
Brethren, they should know before it is published that a member of the General Authorities
wants to publish a book. I said it may seem all right for the writer of the book to say,
I only am responsible for it, but I said you cannot separate your
position from your individuality, and we should like the authors to present their books to
the Twelve or a Committee appointed. I asked the Brethren of the Twelve to convey
this information to the other General Authorities. On motion, this became the consensus of
the Council.

_____

LETTERS FROM McKAY TO CHURCH MEMBERS REGARDING McCONKIES MORMON DOCTRINE
AND OTHER BOOKS PUBLISHED BY INDIVIDUAL GENERAL AUTHORITIES

President McKay, who is recuperating at home under doctorss orders from his recent
illness, has asked me to acknowledge for him your letter of September 8, 1964.

I have been directed to say that individual General Authorities of the Church publish
books on their own responsibility, the publishing of which is not regarded as Church
approval of the books. The Church approves only books which have been authorized for
publication by the General Authorities of the Church, such as the Standard Works of the
Church and authorized textbooks adopted by official action of the Church for the
Priesthood and the organizations fo the Church.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Clare Middlemiss
Secretary to:
President David O. McKay

Subject:

It's curious, with all the fireworks from the First Presidency...

Date:

Mar 22 19:25

Author:

Shakjula

That the Church still quotes extensively from Mormon Doctrine
in official publications.

Subject:

I would chalk that up largely to the personal biases/agendas of those working on
Church Corrlelation committees . . .

Date:

Mar 22 19:32

Author:

steve benson

with the charge of creating and approving Church teaching materials.

At the highest level, the Church has officially distanced itself from McConkie's work.

At lower levels, however, theological termites busy themselves burrowing into the
instructional structure of the Church where they continue to lay their own doctrinal eggs.

Subject:

Doesn't the Quorum of the Twelve and the 1st Presidency....

Date:

Mar 22 19:38

Author:

Shakjula

Pay attention to the official publications coming out on doctrinal
matters, especially like Gospel Doctrine and the other more readily accessible
materials? I should hope that at least one of the big Poobahs would oversee this.

Then again, it might be a case where they're backing away from documents like the Catholic
Church does. They'll still believe in what is said, but won't transmit the doctrine in
such harsh terms -- such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent (pretty hardcore).

Subject:

Which is why they need, Shak. . .

Date:

Mar 22 19:40

Author:

catholicgirl

. . .an imprimatur and a nihil obstat in Mormonism.

Some people have simply assumed that a publication by either Deseret Book or Bookcraft
amounted to the same thing.

Subject:

That would never work....

Date:

Mar 22 19:46

Author:

Shakjula

If they did that, they'd have to give ecclesiastical approbation to
doctrines that they'd have to change officially down the road.

Subject:

It is, perhaps, a matter of ignorance combined with a knowing wink

Date:

Mar 22 19:42

Author:

steve benson

... on the part of some GAs who would like to see their own agendas
advanced through Church publications.

Complicating this is the large Church bureaucracy. Dallin Oaks told me in October 1993
that he didn't "know what goes on over in the High Rise," referring to the
Church Office Building.

Subject:

OK...so how DID it get republished...

Date:

Mar 22 19:39

Author:

Maturin

and then he became an apostle (or was he one at the time)? Just
interested...I've always been suspicious of the book even when I was a TBM.

Subject:

That is an interesting question . . .

Date:

Mar 22 19:48

Author:

steve benson

for which I do not have the answer.

Joseph Fielding Smith (McConkie's father-in-law) was President of the Quorum at the time
of the initial brouhaha over the book and later, of course, became Church president.

Both McConkie and Smith had published their own massive gospel treatises purporting to
expound Mormon doctrine (McConkie with his "Mormon Doctrine," when he was a
member of the Council of the Seventy and Smith with his "Man, His Origin and
Destiny," when Smith was a junior member of the Quorum of the Twelve).

They were both exceedingly dogmatic, everlastingly convinced they were right and virtually
identitical in most, if not all of their interpretations of Mormon doctrine.

Perhaps there was some "loosening" of restrictions initially imposed by McKay,
once Smith's star began to rise to the very top of Church power.

McConkie may have seen the opportunity, hitched his own star to that of his
father-in-law's and slipped his banned book through to republication.

Who knows? I wish I did.

Subject:

How BRM was able to re-publish...

Date:

Mar 22 21:00

Author:

Randy J.

My thinking is that shortly after McKay's dressing-down of McConkie,
he began to get old and senile. In his last years, his hand-picked counselor Alvin R. Dyer
effectively ran the church. And Dyer was as much an old-line fundamentalist as were JFS
and BRM, as evidenced by his well-circulated sermon "For What Purpose?"

And then when McKay died and JFS took control, he allowed his son-in-law BRM to republish
a revised version of MD. And BRM went on to inherit JFS's mantle of the #1 scriptorian and
theologian of his time. BRM's revised MD became the "right arm" reference work
of tens of thousands of Mormons throughout the '70s and '80s.

And of course, MD is still quoted in church literature today, as well as in modern GA's
conference talks, which indicates that MD is still considered orthodox and reliable. It is
only when an "anti-Mormon" brings up embarrassing quotes from the first edition
that Mopologists disavow it. Sorta like Mopologists will disavow the JoD when an
"anti-Mormon" quotes from it on blood atonement, etc.---but then the JoD is
quoted as a primary reference work for modern church-published materials (such as the 1997
lesson manual "The Teachings of Brigham Young.")

As for the acceptability of JFS's teachings, let's not forget that his 3-volume
"Doctrines of Salvation" was re-published by Deseret Book as part of a
collection of paperbacks in the late '70s. The set also included "Discourses of
Brigham Young", "Gospel Doctrine" by Joseph F. Smith, "Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith", "Articles of Faith" by Talmadge, "Miracle
of Forgiveness" by SWK, etc.

"Doctrines of Salvation" contained many of the same ideas and teachings as did
MD, but Mormons don't go around saying DOS is repudiated.

Subject:

Re: How BRM was able to re-publish...

Date:

Mar 23 00:55

Author:

kak

I thought Mormon Doctrine was re-published in a 2nd edition in 1967,
which was before McKay died. According to the book, BRUCE MCCONKIE: HIGHLIGHTS FROM HIS
LIFE AND TEACHINGS, in a chapter devoted to MORMON DOCTRINE, it detailed the brethren
taking issue with some things in the book. They appointed a few people to comb through the
book and produce a list of issues.

Two or three people then sat down with McConkie to go over the list. He made the revisions
to Mormon Doctrine as they wished and it was allowed to be republished in a second
edition.

. . .they are obviously important in helping current and former
members of the LDS Church put that volume in proper perspective.

Interestingly, when I was at BYU, and bought my own personal copy at BYU bookstore, I
don't remember any particular disclaimer regarding it, and wasn't aware until later that
the Church had stopped publishing it.

It's very helpful when you share information like this. Thanks.

Subject:

I was a good mormon for 35 years...

Date:

Mar 22 20:13

Author:

Terrasanct

and no one ever said one word about Mormon Doctrine not being
authorized! It was used all the time. I suspect this would surprise a lot of people.

I have had photocopies of those letters in my files for a couple of
decades and referred to them publicly for the first time here today.

Little did I know that the Infinite and Eternal Internet had me beat.

And all that time I spent typing them in here, damn . . .

Thanks for the info and the link.

Subject:

Even today, it is relevant to ask ' Where DOES one find a concise, official summary
of church doctrine? '

Date:

Mar 22 20:27

Author:

Lurker 2

The fact that McConkie's book was received so well by the membership
should have been a signal to church leaders that such a work was needed. Even today,
leaders and members refer to 'unofficial' sources to clarify doctrine etc.

Subject:

For many, it was really the closest thing to a Catechism. . .

Date:

Mar 22 20:30

Author:

catholicgirl

. . .that anyone in the LDS Church had. Agreed.

Subject:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism . . .

Date:

Mar 22 21:44

Author:

Huh?

This would be a better reference for both members and non-members
alike and supposedly its contents had considerable input/direction from the first
presidency.

Subject:

Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Date:

Mar 22 21:49

Author:

catholicgirl

I know two people personally who worked on the Encyclopedia of
Mormonism, one of whom is my uncle.

While it filled a void in LDS publishing, I would not exactly call it the equivalent of a
Catechism.

Subject:

Career?

Date:

Mar 22 21:17

Author:

Bert

Steve, thanks for sharing part of your library with us. One things
that jumped out for me (not necessarily about the book, but the phrasing of the letters)
was from President McKays office journal.

 that the republication of the book should be forbidden and that the book
should be repudiated in such a way as to save the career of the author as one of the
General Authorities of the Church.

Referring to a General Authority as his career.

Subject:

Re: Career?

Date:

Mar 23 01:43

Author:

Alma

That part jumped off the page for me too! Glad to see it wasn't just
my pragmatism working overtime.

Subject:

Re: Bruce R. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine:"

Date:

Mar 23 02:23

Author:

Ex-caliber

I remember reading parts from the first edition in which McConkie
states that the Catholic Church is the "whore of all the earth" which is
mentioned in the Bible.

I bought the 2nd edition hot off the press and started quoting from it in Church around
1967, I think.

Never once was it brought to my attention that it was not absolutely correct Mormon
doctrine. This was in So Calif.

Also, subsequently in hundreds of Church meetings it was never faulted, at least in my
presence.